In this advanced technological age, the collection and disposal of fluids, particularly waste fluids, has become an ever more complex problem of increased difficulty. In its most general usage, the term "fluid matter" includes not only those substances in a true liquid physical state but also includes substances in solid physical state which are suspended, dispersed, or dissolved in a liquid carrier; as well as those compositions which exist or have been converted into a vaporized or gaseous state. Accordingly, the term "fluid matter" encompasses and denotes any and all of these possible combinations and permutations.
Much of the difficulty and complexity regarding the collection and disposal of fluid matter in general and of waste fluid matter in particular centers and focuses upon what are the proper answers to two different, but directly related, fundamental questions. These are: First, how does one collect and dispose of the fluid matter without himself also coming into effective contact with or being detrimentally affected by the fluid matter during the collection and disposal process? Second, how does one effectively collect and dispose of the fluid matter without concomitantly influencing, contaminating, and/or otherwise altering the source from which the fluid matter originates? Ironically, a satisfactory answer and resolution to one of these questions will typically cause a completely unsatisfactory and often intolerable result with regard to the other of these inquiries. A very few commonplace examples will illustrate the nature and consequences resulting from the longstanding and recurring conflict between the answers to these questions.
Under in vivo conditions, the conflict presented by these fundamental questions is well demonstrated by the persons typically admitted into a hospital ward for: a surgical manipulation or incision; relief from an obstruction or constriction in the urogenital tract; or an ileostomy or colostomy. In the surgical incision instance, a drain is often inserted into the wound area after the surgical procedure in order to collect and drain fluid from the wound subsequently. Conventional practice, however, employs drains having completely open ends in which one open end is inserted into the body of the living subject while the other end lies open and totally exposed to the ambient environment or is superficially covered with a simple bandage. Not surprisingly, infection via the drain at the surgical incision site is commonplace; and is recognized as a frequent hazard and consequence of this procedure. Thus, neither fundamental question is satisfactorily answered, much less mutually resolved, by conventional surgical drains and drainage practices. Not only is the patient (the source) put at risk, but also those persons attending the patient are also unknowingly placed at risk by handling the fluid matter discharged from the drainage tube.
A second in vivo example of a failure to satisfactorily answer and resolve the two fundamental questions is the conventional insertion of a urinary catheter through the genital area into the urinary tract of a patient for relief and release of accumulated urine from the bladder. Typically, a urinary catheter remains inserted internally for several days; and the usual procedure is for a nurse periodically to irrigate the catheter with sterile saline over the duration of its use. However, the catheter, from the time of its insertion internally, must remain completely open and can not prevent backflow of urine from its external end; and unavoidably becomes a pathway for potential infections and other medical complications. Here again, the dangers to both patient and attendant nurse caused by the lack of effective answers to the two fundamental inquiries are apparent. While the collection and disposal of the urinary fluid is physically easy, the nurse or attendant collecting and handling the discharged urine is at serious risk because of unknown bacteria or other microbes which might be in the urine; similarly, the patient is at risk by the continuous exposure of his urinary tract to the presence and possible backflow of urine throughout the entire period of catheter use.
A third in vivo example is the consequence of a (partial or complete) ileostomy or colostomy from which the person must then use a bag for collection of fecal matter. The deficiencies of and problems associated with the conventional ileostomy/colostomy bag are many and attributable to a failure to adequately answer and effectively resolve the two fundamental questions. These deficiencies and problems include: failures of the bag to contain and hold the solid, liquid, and gaseous parts of the fecal matter released from the bowel; severe leakage and drainage both from the resected bowel end and from the retaining bag itself; the frequent infections to the patient at the area of connection between the colostomy bag and the resected end of the bowel; the fecal exposure and general danger to the person attending or helping the patient with attachment and/or replacement of the colostomy bag; and the general inconvenience and cumbersome nature of the conventional colostomy bag, its mode of use, and its mode of attachment and disconnection. Not only is the patient who must use the bag subject to embarrassment, discomfort, and potential infection; often another person aiding the patient is also placed at serious risk by the bag.
Similarly, the two fundamental inquiries apply to a number of commonplace situations at home and in the workplace where the collection and disposal of fluid matter can not be achieved without serious consequences or risks to either the person performing the collection of fluid or the source of the fluid. Typical examples are the use of formalin and/or formaldehyde in the mortuary and funeral home; and the use of organic solvents in the dry cleaning industry. Clearly, both of these instances involve the use of hazardous and/or toxic fluids in which direct exposure whether by direct physical contact or by air contamination may lead to serious chemical and biological injury. Thus, the person collecting and disposing of these hazardous and/or toxic fluids risks his health (and sometimes his life) if the means employed for collecting and disposing of these fluids are not safe and assured. Similarly, if the person does not take effective measures to safeguard the source of these hazardous and/or toxic fluids--recognizing that these fluids have beneficial uses and applications--then by haphazard and reckless methods of collection and disposal, the source may unintentionally and inadvertently become contaminated, chemically altered, or otherwise subjected to undesired change.
It will be recognized and appreciated therefore that the two fundamental questions must be answered and resolved without major conflict; and are of primary importance and paramount interest both to the person performing the task of collecting the fluid and to the source of the fluid matter. The need for an effective system for the collection and disposal of fluid matter which protects and preserves both the source of the fluid as well as the person collecting the fluid is long recognized and remains today unsatisfied in the main. The development of a general receiving, collection, and disposal system which adequately answers and properly resolves these two fundamental issues would therefore be recognized by persons ordinarily skilled in this field as being a major advance and providing highly desirable benefits to the user.